4.3 Article

Comparison of Modified Posterior Sub-Tenon's vs. Trans-Septal Triamcinolone Injection for Non-infectious Uveitis

期刊

OCULAR IMMUNOLOGY AND INFLAMMATION
卷 29, 期 5, 页码 857-864

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/09273948.2019.1698748

关键词

Periocular steroid injection; steroid intraocular pressure response; uveitic cystoid macular edema; uveitis; vitritis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the safety and efficacy of trans-septal vs. modified posterior sub-Tenon's corticosteroid injections for noninfectious uveitis and found no significant difference in visual acuity improvement and cataract surgery rates between the groups, but a higher rate of vitritis resolution in the modified PST group. Furthermore, the modified PST injection could result in a higher intraocular pressure elevation rate, which could be managed by corticosteroid removal.
Purpose: To compare the safety and efficacy of trans-septal vs. modified posterior sub-Tenon's (PST) corticosteroid injections for noninfectious uveitis. Methods: Retrospective comparison of periocular triamcinolone injection by modified PST (n = 36) vs. traditional trans-septal (n = 79) techniques. Safety and efficacy outcomes were analyzed with regression models. Results: There was no significant difference in visual acuity improvement between the groups at 6 months. There were higher rates of vitritis resolution in the modified PST group but this was not statistically significant (85.7% vs 62.9%, p = .07). Intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation rate trended higher with the modified PST injection (21.9% vs 9.0%, p = .06), with no instances of glaucoma surgery in either group. Two modified PST injection patients with refractory IOP rises had IOP normalization after corticosteroid depot removal. One year cataract surgery rates were similar. Conclusion: Modified PST injection offers clinical efficacy but with possibly higher IOP response rate which could be managed with corticosteroid removal.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据